Listening to Data

Menu

Politics

Having different constitutional instances for each agency governing a different aspect of our lives would give us more precise selection of representatives that match our particular concerns about that exact area. Such representatives may have differing opinions on other areas of government, but his position would not allow him to have any more influence on those other areas that I would have. The representative would represent me only in the specific area of the agency he is elected into.

At some point, we should free ourselves to ask whether we can make a more modern form of government that better accommodates the modern challenges of the diverse populations and global influences and consequences. It is highly unlikely that a democratic (or democratic republic) can ever have the authority to make these optimal decisions that will inevitably result in condemnation by the majority.

This system of governance inevitably results in over criminalizing because it equates so many unrelated violations of law into a single category of a crime requiring a prison sentence. We may need these laws, and for argument’s sake I’ll grant that prison sentences are a valid form of punishment. I question the need for all of these laws to require prison penalties. I question the wisdom of equating any violation of such a wide range of laws to be a single category: an imprisonable convict.

In this increasingly globalized world, we confront the question of how well groups may govern themselves optimally not only to survive within their local context but also keep up with the standards of the global norms. The goal is for self government but that government should thrive at a comparable level to the global norm. What is that measurement that will determine a group’s success at self-governing?

A democratic voting base is that population who has the ability to influence specific government decisions individually. A democratic republic would transfer that direct influence to the representatives. To the extent either of these exist today, that voting base is restricted to government bureaucrats with access to non-public information. Further evidence of bureaucrats being the true base of democracy is that they are largely independent of both the executive and and the legislative branch.

In the actual case, humans facilitated the fast recovery after the false alarm because even though each person is specialized in terms of what they would have been doing that day, they would also, in large part, recognize the situation by observing people around them going about their own restoration of normal life. The specialization among humans is fundamentally different from the specialization of machines in that despite the specialization in duties or goals, humans share their human identity. They will adjust their expectations and demands in part to accommodate for the difficulties they can see others going through to meet those demands. Also, people will volunteer their services in areas that they normally do not work. In contrast, the various systems within an automated economy are less equipped to cooperate with unrelated systems, either in perceiving the need to cooperate, or having the capacity to help.

My hypothesis is that men do have a tendency to prefer male voices for topics of high interest or importance, and that tendency is a consequence of the opportunity for a fruitful counterargument when we disagree. I follow more male voices than female voices, because there are many more people I disagree with than I agree with. I will listen to both sexes if I agree with them, but I will only follow men if there is a potential that I will disagree with them. It is only with other men that I can have any chance of gaining anything through argument.